get_symbol_context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'indexed' which implies a prerequisite but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any auth requirements, or behavior when symbol is not found. It is adequate but could be more transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise: one sentence for the core purpose, one line for example usage, and a brief parameter description. No unnecessary words, and front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main purpose and usage. Although it could mention limitations (e.g., only for indexed code) or behavior for multiple matches, the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details. It is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'symbol' can be exact or partial, and lists the types of symbols (class, function, import). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool returns indexed AST nodes matching a symbol name, including file path, node type, and line range. This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_file_context' (focuses on a file) and 'search_codebase' (broader search).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an example question ('Where is VectorDBClient defined?') that implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though the context of siblings provides some implicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.